Dreger is still pumping the league argument about decertification. The players could file and still reach a CBA settlement. Its up to Gary. He holds all of the cards.
IF that speculated offer is potentially gonna be on the table it's more than fair to both sides. It makes too much sense... But with the NHL, making sense is irrelevant.
If the players were going to decertify, they'd have done it by now. They aren't, because they know the league will call their bluff and they're not going to win in court.
What part of the following do people not realize. If the owners cave on the players' current demands, the owners would, on aggregate, "win" this lockout. Yet, somehow the players are at fault.
The owners will win no matter what. By how much is the question.
Right?
But there are those of us, now, who believe that the players are losing more by not accepting the last offer, or at the least an offer like the leaked to ESPN one than otherwise.
They gained $100 mil in the last deal + pension + most of the contracting rights from the NHL's previous offer.
Then they rejected the offer, turned around and lost another $165 mil over the weekend in lost salaries for another 3 weeks of hockey gone...
I'd still like an explanation from an NHLPA member on how their arguments on the difference between 5/7 year vs 8 year max term lengths and the shorter CBA make any sense.
If the players were going to decertify, they'd have done it by now. They aren't, because they know the league will call their bluff and they're not going to win in court.
Not exactly. The league hasn't decertified because they want to be taken seriously when they do. Decertifying or disclaiming now essentially makes it seem like a negotiating ploy to force the NHL to acquiesce early and settle. But if the NHL doesn't settle early, then the players will be blamed for needlessly following through with a drastic action at a critical time.
The NHLPA will wait for the NHL to cancel the season first and then Decertify/Disclaim. At that point, they are in for the long haul regardless. No one will playing for at least 6 months, time enough to get their court work sorted. Decertifying at this time puts real weight behind their actions. At this point, it seems like a very real possibility that they will follow the process all the way through, if need be. The perception will be different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LickTheEnvelope
Right?
But there are those of us, now, who believe that the players are losing more by not accepting the last offer, or at the least an offer like the leaked to ESPN one than otherwise.
They gained $100 mil in the last deal + pension + most of the contracting rights from the NHL's previous offer.
Then they rejected the offer, turned around and lost another $165 mil over the weekend in lost salaries for another 3 weeks of hockey gone...
I'd still like an explanation from an NHLPA member on how their arguments on the difference between 5/7 year vs 8 year max term lengths and the shorter CBA make any sense.
The shorter CBA is a bargaining tactic. These sides both want a longer CBA. However, the 5/7 vs. 8 yr lengths are of monumental importance to the players. They allow the best players to max out dollars over obscene terms, which allow the mid-tier guys to negotiate down from 8 yrs as a real strategy, even though they never planned on getting 8 yrs. The max contract lengths are yet another tool agents can use to leverage better deals from GMs.
Question, is there an equivalent to disclaim of interest for the owners? Some nuclear option of their own?
They can start folding up their franchise, thereby eliminating themselves as a work location for players. Especially the teams operating at a loss.
The disclaimer/decertification can swing in the owner's favour as well, making it a nuclear option that allows them to crush the players. It's unstable for both parties. But for the players, they should have decertified earlier... now they have to wait for the NHL to cancel the season to really start the process in earnest.
The shorter CBA is a bargaining tactic. These sides both want a longer CBA. However, the 5/7 vs. 8 yr lengths are of monumental importance to the players. They allow the best players to max out dollars over obscene terms, which allow the mid-tier guys to negotiate down from 8 yrs as a real strategy, even though they never planned on getting 8 yrs. The max contract lengths are yet another tool agents can use to leverage better deals from GMs.
But it really isn't...
In terms of actual $$$ the difference between a sliding 5 year or 7 year deal @ 5% variance vs an 8 year deal with a max 25% variance over term is negligible. In the illustration I did of a top player the difference between a 5 year slide and an 8 year slide on 25% was about $700k cap hit. Since these terms affect so few players (currently 40 players in the NHL are on deals not of the 5 or 7 year or less variety) really the overall affect is negligible.
I believe it was leaked purposely, and it was done so the owners can provide the players with the deal they would accept, but at the same time they allow the players to make the offer, thus "winning" the CBA.
The casual fan is happy the players were the reasonable ones, because, from what I have read in other media outlets, casual fan sides with the players already. Everyone can sit back, talk about how greedy those damn owners are, while they buy tickets and hotdogs and park their cars and purchase big foam hands.
I just hope the PA sees this the same as I do, and they offer this deal, with no ridiculous other 'grabs' thrown in, and we have a deal by Christmas, and the first games on New Years Eve.
Unless the Mayans were right, and Gary and Fehr agreeing to anything is actually a sign of the apocalypse and the planet Nibiru crashes into the Earth the minute pen is put to paper to ratify this.
Let's assume we shrink it to the max 8 year proposed by the PA with a max total term variance of 25% of highest value and shrink the total huge years a tad to fit it a bit better:
1- $14 mil
2- $14 mil
3- $14 mil
4- $10.5 mil
5- $10.5 mil
6- $10.5 mil
7- $10.5 mil
8- $10.5 mil
= $11.82 mil cap hit
vs 5 year sliding:
1- 14 mil
2- 13.3 mil
3- 12.64 mil
4- 12 mil
5- 11.4 mil
= $12.67 mil cap hit
vs 7 year sliding:
1- 15 mil
2- 14.25 mil
3- 13.54 mil
4- 12.86 mil
5- 12.22 mil
6- 11.61 mil
7- 11.03 mil
= 12.93 mil cap hit (3 mil total term value from the 8 year... cap hit 1 mil difference).
The differences between the 8 and the 5 or 7 will always be marginal for players at the higher end. The only reason the long terms helped cap before was because of the extreme lengths and variances you could get to over that length.... 8,7,5 doesn't matter.
In terms of actual $$$ the difference between a sliding 5 year or 7 year deal @ 5% variance vs an 8 year deal with a max 25% variance over term is negligible. In the illustration I did of a top player the difference between a 5 year slide and an 8 year slide on 25% was about $700k cap hit. Since these terms affect so few players (currently 40 players in the NHL are on deals not of the 5 or 7 year or less variety) really the overall affect is negligible.
Two things:
The terms affect _everyone_. There are few players that receive deals in excess of 7 years, but that doesn't mean said players would be receiving the salary they had been if their agents had not negotiated down from 10-15 years down to 7. It is a negotiating tactic used by agents. If those same agents are now restricted to 7 years max length, the negotiating room is far less, which means they can't drive up the salary level in the same way.
Also, the actual dollars is what's at stake. The variance comes after. Your initial example assumes the actual dollar value is static among the variance examples. My point is that the actual dollars will be affected, regardless of the variance, because the actual dollars can better be flattened via negotiation.
IDK..........I don't think there is much to see here. If even true it's still one NHL opinion. To me it would be like an NHLPA member anonymously saying "I could live with this, this and this."
The terms affect _everyone_. There are few players that receive deals in excess of 7 years, but that doesn't mean said players would be receiving the salary they had been if their agents had not negotiated down from 10-15 years down to 7. It is a negotiating tactic used by agents. If those same agents are now restricted to 7 years max length, the negotiating room is far less, which means they can't drive up the salary level in the same way.
Also, the actual dollars is what's at stake. The variance comes after. Your initial example assumes the actual dollar value is static among the variance examples. My point is that the actual dollars will be affected, regardless of the variance, because the actual dollars can better be flattened via negotiation.
Right, but my point is once the term is fixed the difference between 7 and 8 years is completely negligible...
Dreger is still pumping the league argument about decertification. The players could file and still reach a CBA settlement. Its up to Gary. He holds all of the cards.
I believe it's in the best interest of the PA to decertify. The experts that were quoted in articles suggest it's more likely we'd have a season if the PA decertifies. I understand the League doesn't want that because it'll weaken their negotiating position. They'll make that very clear to media contacts...
Why haven't the Players decertified yet? Maybe Fehr prefers just sticking to classic labor negotiations, maybe Fehr doesn't have the support of the players. If that's the case, I think the PA is making a mistake.
I think both the League and the players should up the ante to change the dynamics.
They can start folding up their franchise, thereby eliminating themselves as a work location for players. Especially the teams operating at a loss.
The disclaimer/decertification can swing in the owner's favour as well, making it a nuclear option that allows them to crush the players. It's unstable for both parties. But for the players, they should have decertified earlier... now they have to wait for the NHL to cancel the season to really start the process in earnest.
There are other options for the owners as well. They can tie up litigation in the courts for years and there's already precedent with respect to anti-trust damages in US court...the total amount owed including interest was $3.76. The NHL could cost the players millions in legal fees that might never be recovered as fees and damages would be against the franchise not the owners themselves. The Franchises that lost big settlements could then simply cease operations and declare bankruptcy.
That wouldn't be the first step for owners though. Their nuclear option is the guaranteed contract. Since all player contracts refer top terms of the CBA and many provisions the players rely on are inherently contained within the CBA (Pensions, guanranteed contracts etc) if there is no CBA the NHL would argue the contracts cannot be enforced and every player should be made a UFA immediately. Then only the top 5% of players would be able to negotiate similar terms with their teams. Following player situations like Redden and Gomez how likely is it the majority of players would receive the guaranteed contracts they fought so hard for in previous negotiations.
If the players decertify it could take years before it's all settled depending on how the first few volleys in court went but history has not been kind to playres in that regard so far. The court may even decide decertification is a negotiating ploy and overturn it. I believe that happened once as well. Both sides need to exercise caution with regard to decertification and the long term fallout from it as it's neither in the players or owners long term interest...only the top players would benefit in the long term.
Right, but my point is once the term is fixed the difference between 7 and 8 years is completely negligible...
I don't think that it is. It may seem that way when talking about variance alone, but it's not when talking about getting max dollar value from your employer. Every year an agent negotiates down from, is a year he can use to bump up the salary on the remaining term. Moving from 8 to 7 should cost the GM something. Likewise, so should moving from 7 to 6, and so on...
In the new landscape, how much is a year actually worth to a GM? +500k on all remaining years? 1m? etc... If it's anything close to these mentioned values, that is a massive concession by the players across the board.
Decertifying/Disclaiming would be absolutely pointless at this point with so little left to dispute over.
If a season is lost, what would the PA gain by doing it? Chances are absolutely nothing unless they brought anti-trust suits and actually won in court. Mind you, the players are going to have to pay for that battle as well.
The ESPN leak sounds exactly what both sides should agree on and if they can't then they really are stupid and both deserve to get no skrilla this year.
There are other options for the owners as well. They can tie up litigation in the courts for years and there's already precedent with respect to anti-trust damages in US court...the total amount owed including interest was $3.76. The NHL could cost the players millions in legal fees that might never be recovered as fees and damages would be against the franchise not the owners themselves. The Franchises that lost big settlements could then simply cease operations and declare bankruptcy.
That wouldn't be the first step for owners though. Their nuclear option is the guaranteed contract. Since all player contracts refer top terms of the CBA and many provisions the players rely on are inherently contained within the CBA (Pensions, guanranteed contracts etc) if there is no CBA the NHL would argue the contracts cannot be enforced and every player should be made a UFA immediately. Then only the top 5% of players would be able to negotiate similar terms with their teams. Following player situations like Redden and Gomez how likely is it the majority of players would receive the guaranteed contracts they fought so hard for in previous negotiations.
If the players decertify it could take years before it's all settled depending on how the first few volleys in court went but history has not been kind to playres in that regard so far. The court may even decide decertification is a negotiating ploy and overturn it. I believe that happened once as well. Both sides need to exercise caution with regard to decertification and the long term fallout from it as it's neither in the players or owners long term interest...only the top players would benefit in the long term.
Actually, the end result after all litigation would be a free market. And a free market is far more palatable to player interests than a CBA is. A CBA only allows the owners to collectively push the players further and further into less rights and advantages. In general, my opinion has always been that a union far more helps the owners than it does the players. The low end guys get hurt in a union. However, the high end and mid-level guys get paid, and paid well.
But you're right in that if decertification is seen as a ploy, it's bound to fail. This is why Fehr called in the mediators last time out. He's doing everything he can to "appear" fair in this process so that if it does go to the courts - he'll have leverage. The owners already receiving better compensation limits when compared to the last CBA, will be another argument for the PA's side, just in terms of raw dollars.
Decertification can go either way, but in this case, I like the players' chances.
Decertifying/Disclaiming would be absolutely pointless at this point with so little left to dispute over.
If a season is lost, what would the PA gain by doing it? Chances are absolutely nothing unless they brought anti-trust suits and actually won in court. Mind you, the players are going to have to pay for that battle as well.
The ESPN leak sounds exactly what both sides should agree on and if they can't then they really are stupid and both deserve to get no skrilla this year.
If the season is lost the PA would be decertifying for damages, as in getting their full contracts paid out.
I don't think that it is. It may seem that way when talking about variance alone, but it's not when talking about getting max dollar value from your employer. Every year an agent negotiates down from, is a year he can use to bump up the salary on the remaining term. Moving from 8 to 7 should cost the GM something. Likewise, so should moving from 7 to 6, and so on...
In the new landscape, how much is a year actually worth to a GM? +500k on all remaining years? 1m? etc... If it's anything close to these mentioned values, that is a massive concession by the players across the board.
Right but you still start at the same numbers...
As my demo with Weber's term shows. Right now Weber's cap hit is $7.8 mil over the 14 years. Well the new CBA certainly wont have 14 year terms with the crazy variance of 50% drops every couple of years....
If you run the similar numbers over the first 7 years less 12% or so:
= $86 mil * 12% = $10.32 mil... $86 mil - $10.32 mil = $75.68
= $10.81 cap hit
@ 8 years = $80.96 (after 12% off)/8 = $10.12 mil cap hit
There's a difference but if the total cap hit across the NHL changes $1 mil/player for 40 players in the scheme of things that's a $40 mil cap difference league wide, which is no where near enough to destroy the middle class as some NHLers feel.
The negotiating of longer contracts for mid tier players cannot be that affect as I strongly doubt they are going into negotiations asking for 10 year terms at $2 mil...
Decertifying/Disclaiming would be absolutely pointless at this point with so little left to dispute over.
If a season is lost, what would the PA gain by doing it? Chances are absolutely nothing unless they brought anti-trust suits and actually won in court. Mind you, the players are going to have to pay for that battle as well.
The ESPN leak sounds exactly what both sides should agree on and if they can't then they really are stupid and both deserve to get no skrilla this year.
If I'm the League, I say:
-It's too early, too late, or not the right time to decertify.
-It's an irrelevant sideshow with little impact.
-I put the fear of death in the players about the consequences to them personally.
For the League, it seriously hurts them right now (the owners might be forced to settle right away or a Court might force them to get back on the ice) and in the long term if they decide to fight. It's a lose, lose, lose proposition for them.
